Guest Post By Syed Ahsan Ali.
President Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto have been in dialogue for sometime now. The dialogue has so far yielded nothing. As external forces are increasing pressures on both of them to find a way to from an arrangement that can fight greater challenges of militancy in the region, things are moving towards an alliance of moderate and liberal forces in the country.
Pakistan People’s Party is facing risk of losing huge public support by entering in this kind of dialogue. Polls are clearly showing that PPP‘s popularity is dwindling as this dialogue is getting towards its eventuality. Why PPP is doing this? Is there only external pressure or is there any real ideology behind these meneavours.
Benazir Bhutto may not have proven herself a successful Prime Minister in the last two chances she got, but certainly she has a far broader insight into international and national politics. She clearly holds an opinion that it is better to persuade Army to detach itself from the politics in Pakistan than to force it out of this whole set-up. She has two options. One is to create an atmosphere of bargain where she can offer an easy exit to Pakistan army from Presidency and accept democracy in return. Option number two is to launch full-fledge movement of confrontations, rallies, congregations, arrests and protests. Interestingly option two may be what Mian Nawaz Sharif will adopt in next few months if he gets back to Pakistan. Benazir thinks that after what happened in CJP episode it is a lot more easier now to involve Army in a table-talk where for the first time in the history of Pakistan, establishment felt tremors under its feet as a result of civil protests. Some in the Army may also be thinking that they have to find ways to get back to the barracks gracefully.
Now the million dollar question remains what is the most suitable way to find democracy in Pakistan? Protests and agitation or agreements and talks. Benazir‘s option has one bigger risk that Army can get back to the politics any time they want by breaking any kind of agreement and control the reins of governance. Nawaz Sharif‘s thinking on the other hand may be dangerous in this volatile situation of Pakistan but can be lot more fulfilling in the years to come. Public is certainly against any kind of agreement or deal with the establishment by democratic forces but they are missing a point here that it will not be easy at all to send Army back to its barracks by force. Some kind of negotiations with the Army have to bring in to avoid any kind of clashes in these precarious law and order conditions where Army has strong reasons to stay in control.
About the Author: Syed Ahsan Ali holds a masters degree in Economics and is a writer by profession. He occasionally writes for the daily News and the daily Dawn also.
It is fine to send army back to barracks by negotiation but the alternative should be loyal to country and not the corrupt politician. Actually deal makers and BB know that polling is nothing more than game and only that person will hold the government who will be supported by establishment and deal makers. Thats why BB is trying to sneak in to government because she knows this is only way to get rid of corruption cases against her.
I think Nawaz can do a better job in confronting extremism because
1. He seems to have large public behind him.
2. He is right mind person and can unite forces of right hand against extremism. Getting BB is same as “preaching to the converted”.
I wish that instead of deal, we should have fair elections and then ppl should decide about PM and President post.
This definitely is not. This dealmaking is morally and legally wrong because it is an effort to bypass the 160 million people of this country when elections are only months away. It would have made sense only if we have had elections already and PPP and Q league had mustered the 2/3rds majority together to add amendments to the constitution. Just like Mush’s reelecetion by this assembly is illegal, any amendments to the constitution to decide his future for the next 5 years by the current assembly are illegal too. Why do we even care for elections if the “lame duck” assembly will make all critical future decisions of this country.
Overthrow of the present regime through mass protests can establish the importance of the masses in the power equation and set a healthy precedent. Future rulers might not ignore the people completely. For example, BB’s mindset is that the people are fools and will vote for her regardless of what she does and that all she has to do is to make Washington and GHQ happy. If her talks with Mush succeed and she gets a good thrashing in the polls, that will teach her and other politicians to focus on the masses as the main constituency rather than striking deals with outsiders.
Another thing to keep in mind is that a deal between Mush and BB in the name of uniting ‘liberal’ forces is one of the most ridiculous and dangerous ideas being pushed by Washington and some Pakistani liberals. Lets say that they are even able to bring BB into power. Will it weaken extremism? What will happen when the anti-incumbency factor turns against her (most probably due to a repeat of large scale corruption) and the other forces like MMA join hands with NS against her to come to power in the next elections?
Lastly, whichever way democracy is restored, if the politicians don’t deliver on providing good governance, the system will remain vulnerable to army take-overs. Today, there is a strong desire for democracy among Pakistanis, but this can quickly evaporate if the post-Mush elected govts are like the BB-NS ones in the 1990s. Raising slogans about democracy without talking about reforms aimed at making the political system reach out to the people is rather short-sighted and can come back to haunt us.
Naseem’s comments are amusing…and sad. No wonder democracy has difficulty flourishing in Muslim countries. It is not only because of external forces but an extremely rigid, inflexible and literalist mindset that exists among so many “believers”.